The Thameslink franchise 2013 onwards: an initial

submission from Passenger Focus

May 2012

1

Table of Contents Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................. 1 1. Passenger Focus .......................................................................................................................... 2 2. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 2 3. Overview of the franchise ............................................................................................................. 3 4. Passenger research and implications for the franchise ................................................................ 4 

4.1 Passenger Priorities ................................................................................................................ 5 4.2 National Passenger Survey and drivers of satisfaction ........................................................... 6 

5. Key issues for the franchise specification ................................................................................... 10 5.1 Giving passengers a voice in the new franchise ................................................................... 10 5.2 Value for money ................................................................................................................... 10 5.3. Punctuality and reliability ...................................................................................................... 11 5.4 Capacity and frequency ......................................................................................................... 12 5.5 Dealing with disruption and provision of information ............................................................. 13 5.6 Length of time of journey ....................................................................................................... 14 5.7 Fares and ticket retailing ....................................................................................................... 14 

6. Equity and access ....................................................................................................................... 16 7. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 16 

7.1 Further research and analysis ............................................................................................... 16 8. Contact for further information .................................................................................................... 16 Appendix 1 Summary of recommendations .................................................................................... 17 Appendix 2 Route definitions and sample sizes ............................................................................. 19 Appendix 3 NPS autumn 2011 - scores by building block .............................................................. 20 Appendix 4 Multivariate analysis of drivers of satisfaction Spring/Autumn 2011 ........................... .21

2

1. Passenger Focus Passenger Focus welcomes the opportunity to provide an initial analysis and recommendations for the forthcoming Thameslink re-franchise process. This submission provides evidence of passenger perspectives and priorities drawn from research conducted with over five thousand passengers on routes potentially included within the new franchise, together with recent National Passenger Survey (NPS) responses. Passenger Focus is the independent public body set up by the Government to protect the interests of Britain's rail passengers, England’s bus and tram passengers outside London and coach passengers in England on scheduled domestic services. We are funded by the Department for Transport (DfT) but operate independently. Our mission is to get the best deal for passengers. With a strong emphasis on evidence based campaigning and research, we ensure that we know what is happening on the ground. We use our knowledge to influence decisions on behalf of passengers and we work with the industry, passenger groups and government to secure journey improvements.

2. Introduction

Revised franchise policy indicates the Government intends to let longer franchises where possible and also issue less central specification, giving bidders greater flexibility in how they specify/develop the service offered to passengers. Passenger Focus believes that when the requirements of the franchise are established, it is vital that the needs of passengers who use and pay for rail services are placed squarely at the heart of the contract. We are pleased to have engaged with the Department for Transport from an early stage in the Thameslink franchise replacement process. We have used discussions to highlight key passenger issues and the findings of our research on a range of subjects. In advance of the consultation Passenger Focus is now making a formal contribution to the development of the franchise. This document sets out our initial analysis of the principal factors the franchise should address and our high level recommendations for the specification. We will make a further detailed contribution during the consultation period. A core principle should be that the specification must build on the existing framework of services and seek progressive improvements in all areas of performance. It is important that the franchise ensures that existing demands are adequately addressed and, that at appropriate stages, franchise reviews can respond to any changes or inaccuracies in planning assumptions. It is equally important that, throughout its duration, the franchise remains responsive to changing passenger needs. This means that not only must there be a clear understanding of passenger requirements at the outset but that there is an ongoing emphasis on consultation and engagement

3

with stakeholders and a set of output measures that reflect passenger satisfaction. The National Passenger Survey should be included within the franchise monitoring mechanisms. All franchises require firm commitments to be met by the operator on given dates and these must be transparent, clearly defined and monitored. The franchise should focus on outcomes for passengers and ensure that there are sanctions available to reflect any failure in delivery. The ultimate sanction should be termination. Over the coming months we will vigorously promote the passenger agenda and will work closely with DfT and short-listed bidders to ensure passenger requirements are evidenced and addressed by the franchise specification, during the franchise competition and at all stages of the ensuing contract term. 3. Overview of the franchise The future Thameslink franchise will cover a substantial part of southern England. The existing First Capital Connect (FCC) network already comprises two distinct service groups: Thameslink (TL) and Great Northern (GN). During the lifetime of the new franchise this is proposed to be expanded to include at least some services from Southeastern (SER) and all of Southern (SN). The resulting franchise will be large, complex and geographically diverse. There will be many different service groups, all catering at varying levels for commuter, business and leisure markets. There will be a need to respond effectively to the needs of passengers making a range of journeys including those on metro services within London, longer distance commuting and also suburban, rural and local travel. The challenge of melding three different organisational cultures, motivating staff and developing cohesive working practices will be considerable and at the same time the operator must ensure all staff focus on providing a high quality, punctual and reliable rail service. The backdrop to the organisational and cultural transformations and the requirements of day to day service delivery will be the tremendous changes associated with the Thameslink programme. This will include significant infrastructure works, the deployment of new rolling stock, commissioning of new train control systems and introduction of a comprehensive new timetable. The challenges of working within the constraints of such major works will be considerable and there will inevitably be impacts upon passengers. The scale of change that will occur during the seven-to-nine year life of the franchise is immense. The future operator must demonstrate excellent skills in planning and project management and in collaborative working. The ability to build strong and effective relationships with Network Rail will be particularly important to ensure that passenger needs are considered as infrastructure works are undertaken and there is accurate and timely information available so that passengers can plan their journeys.

4

4. Passenger research and implications for the franchise This submission is informed by two specific strands of research, both of which evidence passenger perspectives and priorities. These form the basis for our top level recommendations for the franchise. The National Passenger Survey (NPS), together with an analysis of the drivers of satisfaction and dissatisfaction, is a comprehensive source of information about passenger perceptions. Scores on a wide range of factors are available for each of the three existing franchises1 and these can also be broken down to show variations across the main service groups within them. Further insight into passenger views, priorities and aspirations is drawn from the initial findings of detailed route based research with passengers. In preparation for the franchise consultation we have conducted a large-scale study involving 5520 passengers on existing FCC and SER routes2. With fieldwork conducted between February and March 2012, this research has just reported. The decision to survey passengers across many SER routes was based on the Department’s intention to consider “some further current Southeastern services which may be transferred to enable the implementation of the full Thameslink service operation.”3 As the Thameslink service pattern is expected to be subject to further consultation before being finalised, and with the re-franchise of SER also on the horizon, we felt that the this was the appropriate time to take a more rounded picture of passenger needs across the SER network. Passenger Focus conducted extensive research with passengers on eight Southern routes in November 2007 to inform the specification for the current franchise4. Although there have been changes we believe that many of the findings from this work remain applicable. It was decided, therefore, that our new research should focus on developing knowledge of passengers’ needs on routes we have not previously studied and that will be included in, or potentially considered for, the initial stages of the new Thameslink franchise. Further analysis of the route based research and NPS will be fed into our response to the franchise consultation.

1 First Capital Connect, Southeastern and Southern 2 See Appendix 2 for details of routes and sample sizes 3 OJEU notice, Department for Transport, 19/12/11 4A passenger focused franchise? What passengers want from South Central, April 2008

5

4.1 Passenger Priorities Tables 1 and 2 show the passenger priorities for improvement across different routes on the First Capital Connect and Southeastern franchises, with the top factor ranked at 100 and the value of other factors indicating the relative strength of importance5. The significance of punctuality and reliability and value for money is clearly demonstrated. Table 1 – First Capital Connect passenger priorities by route6

Factor Overall Rank TOTAL A B C D E F G

Punctuality / reliability of the train 1 100 100 96 100 100 100 100 94 Value for money for price of ticket 2 80 47 100 92 90 65 73 100

Frequency of trains for this route 3 63 73 54 76 46 46 70 62 Being able to get a seat on the train 4 49 30 59 41 65 29 42 58 Length of time the journey was scheduled to take (speed) 5 32 22 36 28 40 21 32 43 Provision of information during times of disruption 6 27 23 23 28 26 32 28 32 Upkeep/ repair and cleanliness of the train 7 25 18 22 21 28 26 24 38 Ease of buying a ticket 8 16 9 17 20 18 14 15 26 Provision of information during the journey 9 16 13 15 22 16 17 17 18 Connections with other train services 10 15 13 12 16 19 15 15 16 Availability of staff 11 11 8 11 14 9 13 13 15 Quality of facilities and services at the station (e.g. toilets/shops/cafes) 12 11 6 10 12 11 11 10 19 Ease of getting to and from the station 13 9 5 10 11 9 10 9 12 Facilities and services on board the train 14 7 4 6 7 9 6 6 11

5 Green indicates the top three factors on each route and paler green the next most important. 6 Key to sub routes at Table 1:

A – Thameslink Loop,

B – Blackfriars/Kentish Town to Luton/Bedford,

C - Blackfriars/Kentish Town to Harpenden,

D – St Pancras/London Bridge to Three Bridges and Brighton,

E – St Pancras/London Bridge to Denmark Hill/Sevenoaks,

F – Kings Cross/Moorgate to Hertford North and

G – Kings Cross/Finsbury Park to Arsley/Peterborough

6

Table 2 – Southeastern passenger priorities by service group

Factor Overall

rank Total* Highspeed mainline metro Value for money for price of ticket 1 100 100 100 81 Punctuality / reliability of the train 2 98 71 87 100 Frequency of trains for this route 3 62 48 53 71 Being able to get a seat on the train 4 59 45 52 59 Length of time the journey was scheduled to take (speed) 5 42 38 47 31 Provision of information during times of disruption 6 31 27 29 29 Upkeep/ repair and cleanliness of the train 7 29 24 29 26 Ease of buying a ticket 8 20 22 17 17 Provision of information during the journey 9 19 16 18 17 Connections with other train services 10 16 17 14 14 Availability of staff 11 15 16 15 13 Quality of facilities and services at the station 12 14 17 14 11 Ease of getting to and from the station 13 13 15 12 9 Facilities and services on board the train 14 10 12 11 6 * NB‐Total shown as illustration only. Sampling across the different routes mean that these figures are not representative of the franchise as a 

whole. 

4.1.1 Core priorities for the Thameslink franchise Recommendation: The core priorities the Thameslink franchise must address are the fundamentals for all passengers. These are: providing a punctual and reliable service delivering value for money provision of sufficient capacity, both in terms of frequency of service and sufficient

seating on the train effective management of any disruption, especially through information to passengers. The relatively high priority (fifth overall) for improvements to the length of time the journey was scheduled to take suggests that improving the speed of journeys will merit further consideration in the new franchise. 4.2 National Passenger Survey and drivers of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Evidence from the National Passenger Survey (NPS) reinforces the importance of some of the highest priorities identified for the franchise. 4.2.1 Drivers of satisfaction Figure 1 shows the dominance of punctuality and reliability as a driver of satisfaction for passengers on all three franchises. It is a particularly strong factor for satisfaction with FCC and, at 52%, is higher than the London and South East (LSE) sector average of 45%. The Southeastern score of 44% is in line with the sector. The strength of punctuality and reliability on Southern is

7

lower, at 24% but, nevertheless, this still remains the most significant factor influencing passenger satisfaction. Other notable drivers of passenger satisfaction are cleanliness of the inside of the train, frequency of trains and ease of being able to get on and off the train. This latter factor can relate both to the impact of crowding on ability to board heavily loaded trains and difficulties with physical access. For Southern the length of journey and overall station environment are also notable drivers of satisfaction. Figure 1 Drivers of satisfaction NPS Autumn 2011

FCC = First Capital Connect/SER = Southeastern/SN = Southern/LSE = London and South East sector

4.2.2 Drivers of dissatisfaction An analysis of the factors that drive passenger dissatisfaction (shown in Figure 2) also echoes the importance of passengers’ key priorities. How the train company dealt with delays is, by far and away, the main driver of dissatisfaction. This factor scores 79, 64 and 59% for FCC, SER and SN respectively. It is clear that where delays are not dealt with well, passengers will be dissatisfied. Poor perception of punctuality and reliability is the secondary factor driving dissatisfaction. For Southern, sufficient room for passengers also ranks alongside this as a driver.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Sta

tion

-Pro

visi

on O

f Inf

orm

atio

n A

bout

Tr

ain

Tim

es/P

latfo

rms

Sta

tion

-The

Ove

rall

Sta

tion

Env

ironm

ent

The

Freq

uenc

y O

f The

Tra

ins

On

That

R

oute

Pun

ctua

lity/

Rel

iabi

lity

(i.e.

The

Tra

in

Arr

ivin

g/D

epar

ting

On

Tim

e)

The

Leng

th O

f Tim

e Th

e Jo

urne

y W

as

Sch

edul

ed T

o Ta

ke (S

peed

)

Val

ue F

or M

oney

For

The

Pric

e O

f You

r Ti

cket

Trai

n -T

he P

rovi

sion

Of I

nfor

mat

ion

Dur

ing

The

Jour

ney

Trai

n -S

uffic

ient

Roo

m F

or A

ll Th

e P

asse

nger

s To

Sit/

Sta

nd

Trai

n -T

he C

omfo

rt O

f The

Sea

ting

Are

a

Trai

n -T

he E

ase

Of B

eing

Abl

e To

Get

O

n A

nd O

ff Th

e Tr

ain

The

Cle

anlin

ess

Of T

he In

side

Of T

he

Trai

n

The

Cle

anlin

ess

Of T

he O

utsi

de O

f The

Tr

ain

How

Tra

in -

Com

pany

Dea

lt W

ith T

hese

D

elay

s

FCC

SER

SN

LSE

8

Figure 2 Drivers of dissatisfaction – NPS wave 25

4.2.3 NPS scores by train operator and building block Table 3 below shows autumn 2011 NPS scores for FCC, SER and SN, together with their performance compared to the London and South East sector index. It illustrates some variation in passenger satisfaction across different factors on each operator and also reinforces the very low satisfaction with value for money and the handling of delays. NPS can also be disaggregated into route groups for each operator. Known as ‘building blocks’ these show how passenger satisfaction varies across each network and highlight differences that would otherwise be masked by the overall averages for the train operator. Appendix 3 shows a further breakdown of NPS scores by the building blocks for each operator and Appendix 4 shows how the drivers of satisfaction also vary by building block. Recommendation: Given the variation in scores by TOC and building block Passenger Focus recommends that the specification requires proposals for a route-based management approach to ensure sufficient attention is directed to important aspects of service at appropriate levels within the new franchise.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%S

tatio

n -T

icke

t Buy

ing

Faci

litie

s

Sta

tion

-Pro

visi

on O

f Inf

orm

atio

n A

bout

Tra

in

Tim

es/P

latfo

rms

Sta

tion

-Ove

rall

Sat

isfa

ctio

n W

ith H

ow

Req

uest

Was

Han

dled

The

Freq

uenc

y O

f The

Tra

ins

On

That

Rou

te

Pun

ctua

lity/

Rel

iabi

lity

(i.e.

The

Tra

in

Arr

ivin

g/D

epar

ting

On

Tim

e)

The

Leng

th O

f Tim

e Th

e Jo

urne

y W

as

Sch

edul

ed T

o Ta

ke (S

peed

)

Con

nect

ions

With

Oth

er T

rain

Ser

vice

s

Trai

n -T

he H

elpf

ulne

ss A

nd A

ttitu

de O

f Sta

ff O

n Tr

ain

Trai

n -S

uffic

ient

Roo

m F

or A

ll Th

e P

asse

nger

s To

Sit/

Sta

nd

Trai

n -T

he C

omfo

rt O

f The

Sea

ting

Are

a

The

Eas

e O

f Bei

ng A

ble

To G

et O

n A

nd O

ff Th

e Tr

ain

The

Cle

anlin

ess

Of T

he In

side

Of T

he T

rain

How

Tra

in C

ompa

ny D

ealt

With

The

se D

elay

s

Drivers of dissatisfaction NPS Wave 25

FCC

SER

SN

LSE

9

LSE = London and South East sector TOC = Train operating company The TOC index figure shows whether (and the extent to which) the individual train operator scores are above or below the average for the sector. Scores above 100 % indicate a higher than average score whilst those below 100 show a lower than average performance.

Table 3 NPS Autumn 2011 scores for FCC, SER, SN and comparison with London and South East sector scores, % satisfied 

LSE

FCC

TO

C

inde

x

SER

T

OC

in

dex

SN

TO

C

inde

x

Overall Satisfaction 83 80 96 83 99 83 99

Station Factors   

Overall satisfaction 77 76 98 78 101 78 102

Ticket buying facilities 72 68 96 66 92 73 102

Provision of information about train times/platforms 80 77 96 80 100 81 101

The upkeep/repair of station buildings/platforms 65 63 97 64 98 67 103

Cleanliness 71 70 99 72 102 72 102

The facilities and services 49 50 101 51 103 50 102

The attitudes and helpfulness of the staff 69 66 96 69 100 70 101

Connections with other forms of public transport 74 73 99 75 102 73 99

Facilities for car parking 49 45 93 47 96 44 91

Overall environment 67 64 96 68 101 69 103

Your personal security whilst using 66 65 99 63 95 68 104

The availability of staff 57 55 97 56 99 58 103

How request to station staff was handled 85 85 100 80 94 85 100

Train Factors   

The frequency of the trains on that route 77 76 99 75 98 76 98Punctuality/reliability (i.e. the train arriving/departing on time) 80 77 95 80 100 78 97The length of time the journey was scheduled to take (speed) 83 83 99 81 97 84 101

Connections with other train services 75 76 100 71 94 76 101

The value for money for the price of your ticket 42 38 92 36 86 42 102

Cleanliness Of The Train 74 65 87 70 95 72 97

Up keep and repair of the train 75 63 84 72 96 71 95

Provision of information during the journey 69 47 68 66 96 72 105

Helpfulness and attitude of staff on train 57 32 56 52 91 61 105

Space for luggage 52 44 84 48 93 48 93

Toilet facilities 35 25 73 32 90 36 102

Sufficient room for all passengers to sit/stand 67 60 90 63 94 66 98

Comfort of the seating area 71 62 86 67 93 72 100

Ease of being able to get on and off 80 74 93 79 99 76 95

Personal security whilst on board 75 68 91 71 95 76 101

Cleanliness of the inside 75 65 87 72 96 72 97

Cleanliness of the outside 74 60 81 70 94 74 100

Availability of staff 39 14 37 33 84 40 102

How well train company deals with delays 36 33 91 26 72 35 97

10

5. Key issues for the franchise specification

5.1 Giving passengers a voice in the new franchise The ultimate measure of whether a train company is performing well is whether passengers are happy with the quality of service provided. This is good from a commercial perspective as well as a customer service one as recent conclusions on passenger demand forecasting7 suggest that service quality does have an impact on levels of demand. The DfT’s specification for the new franchise must stretch the successful bidder to take Thameslink passenger satisfaction to higher levels. As we can see from the analysis above (and in Appendix 3) this should apply both for the franchise as a whole and at a building block level where there is a need to bring the worst areas up to the performance of the best. The National Passenger Survey (NPS) is ideally suited to capture this information. NPS has a large sample size covering over 5000 passengers across the existing three TOCs each wave. The sampling plan ensures that it is representative of day of travel, journey purpose (commuter, business and leisure), train company and, of course, by a range of demographic attributes (age, sex, ethnicity etc). In line with existing DfT policy, bidders for the new franchise should be asked to submit bids that include plans on how to improve NPS scores. Recommendation: Passenger Focus recommends the setting of NPS targets for stations, trains and customer service for each of the identified service groups. Doing so simply at a global level risks masking the poorer performing areas.

5.2 Value for money Passengers are paying an increasingly high proportion of the costs of the railway and this makes the delivery of value for money a significant challenge. The Passenger Focus fares and ticketing study8 investigated the influences on passenger perceptions of value for money. It found that whilst intrinsically linked to the price of the ticket, value for money is also influenced by several other significant factors. These link directly to the findings of priorities research and NPS drivers and are: punctuality and reliability being able to get a seat passenger information during service disruption. Improving passenger satisfaction with these core elements of the train service must be a high priority for the Thameslink franchise. Another important factor to assist in delivering value for money is to ensure that fares and ticketing processes are fair, impartial and clear, enabling passengers to purchase the cheapest appropriate ticket for their journey. Recommendations relating to fares and ticketing are addressed in section 5.7.

7 Revisiting the elasticity based framework. DfT, April 2012 8 Fares and Ticketing Study Final report, February 2009

11

5.3. Punctuality and reliability

Table 4 NPS punctuality and reliability autumn 2011, % satisfied First Capital Connect Southeastern Southern

Great Northern 79 High Speed 93 Gatwick Express 93 Thameslink Loop 77 Mainline 76 Sussex Coast 77 Thameslink North 77 Metro 81 Metro 78 Thameslink South 68 Peak 68 Peak 70 Peak 68 Off-Peak 80 Off-Peak 86 Off-Peak 81 Table 4 shows considerable variations in satisfaction between and within the three franchises, with peak services and the Thameslink South building block scoring worst. Only the premium fare High Speed and Gatwick Express services achieve more than 90% passenger satisfaction. With the exception of SER metro, all other building blocks are below the London and South East sector average of 80%. Improving performance is a high passenger priority for improvement and the next franchise should address this significant issue. Research by Passenger Focus9 found that commuters appear to notice lateness from the first minute, not just after the five or ten minutes allowed by Public Performance Measure (PPM). It was also found that the average passenger lateness in the evening peak was worse than the average train lateness. This was because of the effect of cancellations and because many trains were late arriving at intermediate stations even if on time at their destination. Passenger Focus’s principal conclusion from the research is that Britain’s railway must in future focus on ‘right time’ arrival at all stops. We recommend that this is carried into the new Thameslink franchise. Recommendation: Passenger Focus recommends that DfT includes the following punctuality requirements in the specification for the new franchise: Challenging but achievable PPM targets for the franchise as a whole and key

service groups. Punctuality should be disaggregated to the maximum extent possible to be meaningful

to passengers. This should include (as a minimum) reporting on all identifiable routes and service groups – ultimately we see no reason why passengers ought not to be able to identify performance of individual trains.

Challenging but achievable targets for reductions in the number of trains reaching their destination more than 20 minutes late, but without resorting to extended journey times.

Moves towards a ‘right-time’ railway – possibly involving the reduction of the current five minutes allowance and/or publication of right-time performance.

A requirement to report performance of trains arriving at key intermediate stations which for simplicity could also function as stations against which ‘right-time’ performance is published.

9 Towards a ‘right time’ East Anglian railway, March 2010

12

5.4 Capacity and frequency The severe crowding on certain London commuter services is well-documented and, even with the planned interventions on infrastructure and enhancements to the train fleet, provision of sufficient capacity will remain an ongoing challenge. Table 5 shows current passenger satisfaction levels with frequency of service and room for passengers to sit and stand. The low level of peak passenger satisfaction with sufficient room to sit and stand on all services bar the premium High speed and Gatwick Express illustrates the scale of the capacity challenge. The lower levels of satisfaction with peak frequency should also be addressed on the Thameslink Loop, Thameslink South and Southeastern main line. Table 5 NPS Peak and off-peak satisfaction with frequency and capacity by building block10

Factor FCC SER SN % satisfied GN Loop TL N TL S HS ML Metro GEx SC Metro

The frequency of the trains on that route PEAK

79 59 71 59 82 62 71 98 74 69

The frequency of the trains on that route OFF-PEAK

75 67 83 77 85 78 79 97 78 74

Sufficient room for all passengers to sit/stand PEAK

35 53 42 33 84 46 36 83 36 45

Sufficient room for all passengers to sit/stand OFF-PEAK

67 77 68 64 91 77 74 84 70 76

The specification for the future franchise should provide a framework to ensure that service provision is based on passenger needs and priorities and is linked to key measures of passenger satisfaction. This should require the operator to plan, resource and deliver a passenger focused, optimised service pattern. Whilst acknowledging the need for some flexibility to adapt the train service to changing demands, Passenger Focus is clear that there must be sufficient detail in the specification to protect key journey opportunities. These must include journeys to/from school and work and, at key locations, retain or improve connection opportunities. Recommendation: It is imperative that provision of an effective response to capacity needs throughout the term of the contract is made a core requirement of the new franchise. This will need to extend to services expected to be outside the scope of the Thameslink programme. Recommendation: As a minimum Passenger Focus would expect the specification to give a broad outline of the core service to be provided: frequency, first and last trains, basic service patterns, and key journey times.

10 Spring and autumn 2011 combined. Please see Appendix 2 for route abbreviation definitions.

13

Recommendation: The franchise should also consider passenger aspirations in planning future service provision. There must be a requirement to consult fully and meaningfully with the range of stakeholder groups and demonstrate that the needs of differing groups of passengers have been considered when timetable proposals are brought forward. 5.5 Dealing with disruption and provision of information Effective management of disruption and keeping passengers informed must be a key requirement for the next franchise. Table 5 sets out NPS scores for dealing with delays on FCC, SER and SN. Despite an increased focus on these issues over recent years, even the highest scores indicate still only about a third of passengers are satisfied with the way delays are dealt with. There must be significant improvement in this critical factor driving passenger dissatisfaction. Table 6 Satisfaction with how well the train company dealt with delay autumn 2007 -2011 % satisfied FCC SER SN Autumn 2007 25 34 34 Autumn 2008 31 32 33 Autumn 2009 32 25 33 Autumn 2010 34 34 35 Autumn 2011 33 26 35

Passenger Focus supports efforts by the industry to tackle the challenge of improving the management of disruption and also to raise standards of information provision. Research into a number of aspects of disruption and passenger needs for information11 has identified the problems to be addressed and shown how solutions may be found. Recommendations: Passenger Focus recommends the following requirements are incorporated into the key objectives for the Thameslink franchise to improve the management of service disruption and provision of information to passengers: contractual targets to improve NPS satisfaction with the provision of information during

the journey, and that a strategy be developed and implemented to improve NPS scores for “how well train company dealt with delay” and “usefulness of information during a delay”

a facility for passengers to receive email or SMS text alerts free of charge warning them if disruption will, or is likely to, affect their journey – with an associated requirement to achieve a strong level of uptake through marketing of the service

full adoption of the Association of Train Operators (ATOC) Approved Code of Practice - passenger information during disruption and compliance with the Good Practice Guides on provision of passenger information, together with a programme of audit and mystery shopping to assess delivery on the ground

that active co-operation be required with the programme to feed station customer information systems directly from Darwin, the national real time train running database.

The next franchisee must also be required to show what practical steps they will take to improve how passengers are looked after during service disruption, particularly demonstrating their focus on people rather than simply processes.

11 Delays and Disruption – Rail passenger have their say, Passenger Focus, December 2010

Reading station engineering works – what passengers want, Passenger Focus, May 2011

Information: Rail passengers’ needs during unplanned disruption, Passenger Focus and Southern, August 2011

14

5.6 Length of time of journey Improvements to the speed of the journey ranks fifth in passengers’ priorities and it appears as a driver of satisfaction on Southern. A new forecasting model has also suggested a higher sensitivity to journey times than previously thought and a potential increase in passenger demand from speeding up rail journeys12. Table 6 shows NPS satisfaction scores for the length of time the journey was scheduled to take. Whilst these scores are not as low as those for capacity factors, peak satisfaction is notably lower than off-peak. SER mainline scores are also below those for metro and substantially lower than High speed, possibly because these traditional services are seen in a stark contrast to the journey times on the latter. Table 7 NPS satisfaction with length of time the journey was scheduled to take (speed), autumn 2011, % satisfied

First Capital Connect Southeastern Southern Great Northern 85 High Speed 94 Gatwick Express 95 Thameslink Loop 78 Mainline 74 Sussex Coast 83 Thameslink North 83 Metro 83 Metro 84 Thameslink South 78 Peak 75 Peak 74 Peak 76 Off-Peak 86 Off-Peak 85 Off-Peak 86

Recommendation: We recommend that the franchise specification encourages bidders to explore where and how journey times can be reduced. In addition to examining opportunities to improve peak service journey times there should also be a requirement to consider the needs of local markets and to work with passenger groups to identify particular areas where these improvements should be targeted. Joint working with Network Rail should ensure the delivery of journey time improvements is given due consideration when infrastructure works are planned. 5.7 Fares and ticket retailing Passengers have experienced years of above inflation fare increases. The recent Fares and Ticketing review talked of an end to such increases but only once the impact of cost saving measures and improvement in the wider economic situation permits. Passenger Focus supports the concept of fares regulation as it provides some degree of protection to passengers, many of whom are captive consumers. Recommendations: Passenger Focus recommends that the next Thameslink franchise incorporates these recommendations on ticket retailing within the requirements: the level of flexibility that can be applied to increases in individual fares should be

restricted to a maximum of +/- 2% which will allow the train operator to correct any anomalies between fares and address market issues where appropriate but will limit the ability to drive large differences between fares relating to specific routes/stations

increases to unregulated fares should be capped at the same level applied to regulated fares

12 Revisiting the elasticity-based framework, DfT, 2012

15

the journey opportunities of off-peak passengers should be protected and there should be no further dilution of periods of validity of off-peak tickets.

The next Thameslink franchise must make ticket purchase easier for passengers, many of whom are confused by the complexity of the fares system. Clear information about the validity of tickets and any applicable restrictions must be readily available. Passengers should be able to buy the most appropriate ticket for their intended journey, regardless of the whether this is purchased at a ticket office, on-line, at a ticket machine or through any other method. Research has identified a number of issues with both ticket vending machines (TVMs) and websites and these problems are set out, with recommendations about how to improve retailing through these channels, in: Recommendation: The next Thameslink franchise should incorporate recommendations on ticket retailing from the following Passenger Focus publications: Ticket vending machine usability, Passenger Focus, June 2010 Ticket retailing: website usability, Passenger Focus, June 2011 The new franchise should provide a wider range of tickets for passengers. Developments in ticketing such as smart-cards and mobile telephone products should be incorporated into the franchise. The franchise should also require the introduction of innovative new products such as carnet style tickets that will enable passengers who cannot benefit from season ticket discounts to achieve some economies from repeat travel. Schemes to spread the cost of annual season tickets should also be available. Recommendation: Ticket purchase for passengers must be made easier and the franchise should provide a wider range of tickets including innovative new products.

16

6. Equity and access The new franchise must incorporate requirements to ensure that the needs of all potential passengers are recognised and addressed. The specific needs of passengers who are disabled or who have other access needs must be considered and appropriate adjustments made to ensure stations and trains can be utilised safely at all stages of the journey, with necessary assistance provided when required.

7. Conclusion This initial submission on the next Thameslink franchise considers the key requirements of passengers and sets out our high level recommendations on core elements of the service. 7.1 Further research and analysis Passenger Focus will be undertaking additional analysis of the passenger research on FCC and SER routes and further examination of NPS scores for all three franchises. This will provide further, more detailed information about specific issues to address on different parts of the network. We will provide this information at the earliest opportunity to DfT and bidders and will also utilise the findings in our more detailed response to the franchise consultation.

8. Contact for further information

For further information about this submission or other aspects of Passenger Focus work on the Thameslink franchise please contact:

Sharon Hedges Passenger Issues Manager sharon.hedges@passengerfocus.org.uk 07918 626126

17

Appendix 1 Passenger Focus recommendations 1. A core principle should be that the specification must build on the existing framework of

services and seek progressive improvements in all areas of performance. It is important that the franchise ensures that existing demands are adequately addressed and, that at appropriate stages, franchise reviews can respond to any changes or inaccuracies in planning assumptions. (2.Introduction)

2. The core priorities the Thameslink franchise must address are the fundamentals for all passengers. These are: providing a punctual and reliable service delivering value for money provision of sufficient capacity, both in terms of frequency of service and sufficient seating

on the train effective management of any disruption, especially through information to passengers.

(Para 4.1.1)

3. Given the variation in scores by TOC and building block Passenger Focus recommends that the specification requires proposals for a route-based management approach to ensure sufficient attention is directed to important aspects of service at appropriate levels within the new franchise. (Para 4.2.3)

4. Passenger Focus recommends the setting of NPS targets for stations, trains and customer

service for each of the identified service groups. Doing so simply at a global level risks masking the poorer performing areas. (Para 5.1)

5. Passenger Focus recommends that DfT includes the following punctuality requirements in the

specification for the new franchise: Challenging but achievable PPM targets for the franchise as a whole and key service

groups. Punctuality should be disaggregated to the maximum extent possible to be meaningful to

passengers. This should include (as a minimum) reporting on all identifiable routes and service groups – ultimately we see no reason why passengers ought not to be able to identify performance of individual trains.

Challenging but achievable targets for reductions in the number of trains reaching their destination more than 20 minutes late, but without resorting to extended journey times.

Moves towards a ‘right-time’ railway – possibly involving the reduction of the current five minutes allowance and/or publication of right-time performance.

A requirement to report performance of trains arriving at key intermediate stations which for simplicity could also function as stations against which ‘right-time’ performance is published.(Para 5.3)

6. It is imperative that provision of an effective response to capacity needs throughout the term of

the contract is made a core requirement of the new franchise. This will need to extend to services expected to be outside the scope of the Thameslink programme. (Para 5.4)

7. As a min imum Passenger Focus would expect the specification to give a broad outline of the core service to be provided: frequency, first and last trains, basic service patterns, and key journey times. (Para 5.4)

8. The franchise should also consider passenger aspirations in planning future service provision. There must be a requirement to consult fully and meaningfully with the range of stakeholder

18

groups and demonstrate that the needs of differing groups of passengers have been considered when timetable proposals are brought forward. (Para 5.4)

9. Passenger Focus recommends the following requirements are incorporated into the key

objectives for the Thameslink franchise to improve the management of service disruption and provision of information to passengers: contractual targets to improve NPS satisfaction with the provision of information during the

journey, and that a strategy be developed and implemented to improve NPS scores for ‘how well train company dealt with delay’ and ‘usefulness of information during a delay’

a facility for passengers to receive email or SMS text alerts free of charge warning them if disruption will, or is likely to, affect their journey – with an associated requirement to achieve a strong level of uptake through marketing of the service

full adoption of the Association of Train Operators (ATOC) Approved Code of Practice - passenger information during disruption and compliance with the Good Practice Guides on provision of passenger information, together with a programme of audit and mystery shopping to assess delivery on the ground

that active co-operation be required with the programme to feed station customer information systems directly from Darwin, the national real time train running database. (Para 5.5)

10. We recommend that the franchise specification encourages bidders to explore where and how journey times can be reduced. In addition to examining opportunities to improve peak service journey times there should also be a requirement to consider the needs of local markets and to work with passenger groups to identify particular areas where these improvements should be targeted.

Joint working with Network Rail should ensure the delivery of journey time improvements is given due consideration when infrastructure works are planned. (5.6)

11. Passenger Focus recommends that the next Thameslink franchise incorporates these

recommendations on ticket retailing within the requirements. the level of flexibility that can be applied to increases in individual fares should be restricted

to a maximum of +/- 2% which will allow the train operator to correct any anomalies between fares and address market issues where appropriate but will limit the ability to drive large differences between fares relating to specific routes/stations

increases to unregulated fares should be capped at the same level applied to regulated fares

the journey opportunities of off-peak passengers should be protected and there should be no further dilution of periods of validity of off-peak tickets.(5.7)

12. The next Thameslink franchise should incorporate recommendations on ticket retailing from the following Passenger Focus publications: Ticket vending machine usability, Passenger Focus, June 2010 Ticket retailing: website usability, Passenger Focus, June 2011 (5.7)

13. Ticket purchases for passengers must be made easier and the franchise should provide a

wider range of tickets including innovative new products. (Para 5.7)

19

Appendix 2 Route based research on First Capital Connect and Southeastern First Capital Connect route definitions and sample sizes Loop: Stations within the FCC Thameslink loop (498) FCC North (TL N): Blackfriars/Kentish Town to Luton/Bedford (500) Blackfriars/Kentish Town to Harpenden (300 FCC South (TL S): St Pancras/London Bridge to Three Bridges/Brighton (557) St Pancras/London Bridge to Denmark Hill/Sevenoaks (210) Great Northern (GN): Kings Cross/Moorgate to Hertford North (462) Kings Cross/Finsbury Park to Welwyn North /Foxton (119) Kings Cross/Finsbury Park to Cambridge/Kings Lynn (87) Kings Cross/Finsbury Park to Arsley/Peterborough (259) Stations between Cambridge and Kings Lynn (108) Southeastern route definitions and sample sizes Highspeed (400) (HS): Mainline (1104) (ML): Hastings/Tonbridge to London (440) Rochester/Ramsgate to London (244) Ashford to London via Maidstone East (254) Other Mainline routes (166) Metro (916): Gravesend/Dartford to London (404) Metro: Sevenoaks to London (512)

20

Appendix 3 NPS autumn 2011 - scores by building block, % satisfied

LSE

Grt

N

TL L

oop

TL N

orth

TL S

outh

FCC

Hig

h Sp

eed

Mai

nlin

e

Met

ro

SER

GEx

Met

ro

Sx C

oast

SN

Overall Satisfaction 83 82 84 80 72 80 94 79 83 83 89 84 81 83Station Factors Overall satisfaction 77 78 71 74 76 76 89 76 78 78 77 80 77 78 Ticket buying facilities 72 68 63 68 73 68 80 67 64 66 73 73 73 73 Information provision - train times/platforms 80 77 73 76 80 77 82 79 81 80 80 80 82 81 Upkeep/repair - station buildings/platforms 65 63 60 67 59 63 84 66 62 64 67 67 68 67 Cleanliness of the station 71 70 68 74 65 70 87 72 71 72 64 73 73 72 Facilities and services 49 50 37 52 50 50 83 53 47 51 65 45 55 50 Attitudes/helpfulness of staff 69 68 66 63 66 66 82 68 68 69 69 70 69 70 Connections with other public transport 74 70 64 75 82 73 76 67 78 75 84 76 69 73 Facilities for car parking 49 49 19 49 38 45 64 63 37 47 35 34 55 44 Overall environment 67 63 56 68 64 64 83 69 66 68 67 67 71 69 Personal security whilst using 66 64 59 67 65 65 83 63 61 63 65 69 68 68 Availability of staff 57 51 48 56 68 55 77 58 54 56 54 58 59 58 How request to station staff was handled 85 85 79 85 90 85 89 81 78 80 89 80 90 85 Train Factors Frequency of trains on route 77 77 69 80 74 76 84 73 76 75 96 73 78 76 Punctuality/reliability (arriving/departing on time) 80 79 77 77 68 77 93 76 81 80 93 78 77 78 Time journey scheduled to take (speed) 83 85 78 83 78 83 94 74 83 81 95 83 84 84 Connections with other train services 75 78 77 73 73 76 82 64 73 71 83 78 74 76 Value for money for price of your ticket 42 37 42 37 41 38 37 39 34 36 34 42 43 42 Cleanliness of the train 74 66 63 65 62 65 97 70 68 70 80 67 76 72 Up-keep and repair of train 75 64 62 62 61 63 98 73 70 72 78 68 75 71 Provision of information during journey 69 48 43 45 48 47 92 70 63 66 77 70 75 72 Helpfulness/attitude of staff on train 57 35 35 26 34 32 91 63 33 52 80 44 69 61 Space for luggage 52 45 52 41 41 44 78 41 50 48 59 46 49 48 Toilet facilities 35 22 36 26 30 25 79 35 24 32 48 27 42 36 Room for all passengers to sit/stand 67 61 73 58 53 60 91 70 58 63 83 65 65 66 Comfort of the seating area 71 61 66 62 59 62 95 66 65 67 84 68 74 72 Ease of being able to get on/off 80 78 70 74 68 74 96 83 76 79 75 75 76 76 Personal security whilst on board 75 69 67 68 63 68 92 76 68 71 88 71 80 76 Cleanliness of inside 75 65 64 66 63 65 98 75 68 72 82 69 75 72 Cleanliness of outside 74 67 57 51 57 60 89 68 69 70 79 72 75 74 Availability of staff 39 16 12 12 16 14 82 46 17 33 75 22 52 40 How well train company deals with delay 36 32 38 33 31 33 40 31 23 26 26 35 36 35

21

Appendix 4 Multivariate analysis of drivers of satisfaction Spring/Autumn 2011, % impact

FCC

-

G

rt N

orth

ern

FCC

- TL

Loo

p

FCC

- TL

Nor

th

FCC

- TL

So

uth

SER

-

Hig

h Sp

eed

SER

- M

ainl

ine

SER

- M

etro

SN -

GEx

SN -

Met

ro

SN -

Sx C

oast

Station Factors Ticket buying facilities Information provision - train times/platforms 4 5 4 8 7

The upkeep/repair - station buildings/platforms

Cleanliness of the station Facilities/services at station 5 Attitudes/helpfulness of staff 4 Connections with other public transport

Facilities for car parking Availability of staff at station 5 Overall station environment 2 10 8 8 9 8 Personal security whilst using station 2

How request to station staff was handled 4 2

Train Factors Frequency of trains on route 10 6 16 8 17 12 7 12 13 Punctuality/reliability (train arriving/departing on time) 44 44 29 65 54 48 33 34 16 27

Time journey scheduled to take (Speed) 6 5 3 7 9

Connections with other train services

The value for money for the price of your ticket 10 3 3 5

Up-keep and repair of train 4 7 2 2 The provision of Information during journey 3 6 5

Helpfulness/attitude of staff Space for luggage 6 Toilet facilities Sufficient room for all passengers to sit/stand 9 6 5 11 7 3 4 4

Comfort of the seating area 9 4 3 8 9 Ease of being able to get on/off 13 10 15 5 12 8 13 11

Personal security on board 9 5 7 Availability of staff on train Cleanliness of inside train 12 28 5 7 11 18 6 16 9 Cleanliness outside of train 6 7 2 How well train company dealt with delays 6

TOTAL VARIANCE 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

NUMBER OF FACTORS 8 6 10 7 7 8 11 10 12 11

 

 

Passenger Focus One Drummond Gate Pimlico London SW1V 2QY 0300 123 2350 www.passengerfocus.org.uk info@passengerfocus.org.uk Passenger Focus is the operating name of the Passengers’ Council

© 2012 Passenger Focus